The new Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 has taken the country by storm. Everyone from Republican legislators to Major League Baseball and the NBA have denounced the law as a major affront to our freedoms, yet it is widely popular among white, middle-class citizens.
In between accusations that the Obama “Secular-Socialist Regime” will take us straight to Nazi Germany, Republicans are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospects of police conducting identification checks for “suspicious” people on the streets. There is word now that the Hew Hampshire legislature is planning a corresponding law to stem the flow of illegals into that state. Soon the Montpelier Patrol will be able to stop and question anyone who looks like they might be Canadian.
So what have we to do? The most obvious recourse for this law is review by the courts. But considering the notorious rightward tilt of
Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush after the withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers (whose qualifications seemed laughable even to large numbers of Republicans) has proven to be the voice of the contemporary Republican Party. In his five years on the panel, Roberts has decided in every case before the bench: for the prosecution over the defense, for the state against the condemned, for the executive branch over the legislative, or for a corporate defendant over an individual.
With Justices Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas on his side, Roberts has the majority needed to push the Republican agenda down our throats even in the face of a congress stacked against them by popular vote. Hence, we do not see this court overturning Arizona SB 1070, it may be left to the Justice Department to find redress over this matter. It’s also possible that boycotts from groups and even citizens could have a great enough impact on the state economy that Arizonans may see it in a different light.
Looking back on "Citizens United": beyond events on the national scale, courts at all levels of government will be affected by this landmark decision. Most states require periodic re-election of judges. Judicial appointments become partisan positions that require campaign funding. This ruling increases exponentially the amount of money that can flow into a judicial election, even at the local level. What judge can afford to make a ruling against a powerful commercial interest when that corporation has the power to unseat him in his next election? Between 1980 and 1990 $85 Million was put into judicial elections. In the following decade it went to $200 Million. The lid is now off. This has the potential to undermine our entire legal system by putting all courts in play. Good luck.
I will be the first to admit that I have not read the Arizona Immigration bill, but I have a few questions:
ReplyDelete1. Do we want free, unlimited immigration? If we do, we will no longer have to deal with "illegal immigrants". Problem(s) solved.
2. If we are against an open border policy, then how do we enforce it? Have illegal immigrants broken the law?
3. What is the purpose of an unenforced law? [Cheap shot there]
4. If the Federal Government won't enforce a Federal Law, can a state? Today I heard that the US Gov is suing Arizona over this law ????
5. What does racial profiling have to do with this law? It seems to me that racial profiling has to do with the enforcement of the law, not the law itself? Two different issues that seem to be viewed as one.
6. Why is Mexico involving itself with an internal US law? [Of course, we all know how liberal their immigration laws are.]
As you can easily see, I haven't offered any solutions . . . not my job, but to ignore a problem is not a way to solve it [Also, this is a first draft and not a polished product - like the rest of this blog!].
bob aird
1,2,3,4: The immigration “debate” is largely politics. The economic and cultural consequences of removing and stopping illegals would be chaos that would dwarf the fallout from the Gulf blowout. The immigration situation is what it is because that’s what has worked for two generations. During prosperous periods, with high employment, we need these people to run our economy. In slack times, the issue becomes a political football, stoked by hardship suffered by the middle class in particular. In the hands of skilled demagogues this issue can rouse the passions of many, especially right-wingers, and influence their voting. We do not see large numbers of unemployed citizens, however, lining up to claim agricultural jobs that go wanting.
ReplyDelete5: When the law states that law enforcement officers may stop and question people who “look” like they might be illegal immigrants, it’s hard not to conclude that racial profiling is in play. You are correct, however, in that the true issue is “enforcement”, rather than profiling, per se.
We have heard that California has a similar law on the books. But many of our state and federal laws are inconsequential due to lack of enforcement.
6. Mexico is concerned over the treatment of its nationals abroad, just as our government is concerned over the rights of our citizens in foreign countries. Mexico has a large stake in the welfare of its citizens in the United States because of the billions of dollars sent to Mexico by people living and working here.
You are correct: this essay is poorly edited. We have corrected it (slightly), although it was intended to be a Potpourris of issues that have recently emerged regarding the court.
Thanks for commenting. ed.
Obviously, this comment was intended to be facetious. Logic and politics don't mix well, if at all. It should be clear to all that either you have open borders or you don't. Logically, it has to be one or the other. But we have both---illogical as Mr. Spock would say.
ReplyDeleteThe comment on Mexican immigration laws compared to ours was also facetious. Try immigrating to Mexico . . . or even owning land there.
As to why Mexico is concerned about "Mexican Nationals" that are here illegally - and by definition - law breakers, I am curious; how should these criminals be treated? I thought the problems was that [I believe it was] Mr. Fox didn't like them being identified as criminals [see paragraph one]? How else should they be identified and treated? Again, logic loses to emotional appeal.
The comment about the law vs enforcement of the law was serious. I am disappointed in the anti-Arizonan backing groups – like the NAACP - raising the "racial" issue before it exists. I believe everyone living in and visiting European countries needs a passport, and most of them do not look like Mexicans. What about the New England states that are also facing immigration problems?
I guess it is just the overall hypocrisy that I object to . . . the self-serving positioning of our political leaders based not on logic but the emotional, non-informed, self-interested voting public . . . and this issue is tailor-made for them! Isn't it apparent that by supporting the illegals, they are denying our codified immigration laws? Don't bother answering that.
On a completely separate issue, how do we know what would happen to the economy if we had closed borders until we try it. I maintain that after an initial adjustment period, crops would still get harvested and menial jobs would still be filled . . . maybe if we had less of a welfare system and rewarded more for merit . . . no, that would never work.
Bob